For LGBT advocates, a series of unfortunate legislation

When Jones, a Republican state senator from Grand Ledge,gives his side of the anti-bullying saga that took place at the Capitolfour weeks ago, he blames Democrats — namely Whitmer , the Democrats’Senate leader — for staging what turned out to be a

national mediafrenzy.

As Jones tells it, the story of how 16 words — “Thissection does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religiousbelief or moral conviction …” — became a “license to bully” began Nov.2, the same day the Senate passed its controversial anti-bullying billalong party lines.

Jones, the bill’s primary sponsor, said he’s being wonglylabeled as the architect of the religious exemption language. In aninterview last week, he said that on the day of the vote the Republicancaucus attorney, Fred Hall, “was concerned that nobody misinterpret thebill as taking away First Amendment rights. He wrote the clause andadded it, I did not. That was right before we voted.” From there, thebill reached the Senate floor.

“As usual, there was some debating on the floor,” Jonessaid. “No one came to me from the other side of the aisle and said ‘Ihave 12 Democratic votes for you if you take that line out.’ No one didthat.

“Had Senate Minority Leader Whitmer walked across thefloor … I would have jumped through hoops to (strike the language). Butnobody bothered to say anything. Instead, like a good politician, shetwisted it for political gain and got a lot of national media attentionout of it.”

Whitmer responded in an interview Monday — after a brief chuckle.

“If the consequences weren’t so serious about kids’safety in schools, that would be funny. … It’s absolutely pathetic andludicrous to say it’s anyone’s fault but their own (that the Senate’sbill passed with the language),” Whitmer said. “I understand they’remad they became the laughing stock of the nation. But they need to manup and take responsibility.”

It’s been a month since the high-stakes politicking. OnTuesday, the Senate passed nearly unanimously a different version of ananti-bullying bill, sans the religious exemption, sending it to Gov.Rick Snyder’s desk for final approval. Jones and Whitmer both voted forit.

For leaders of Michigan’s gay community,though, the bill falls short of what they sought: Specific protectionfor GLBT individuals and those who are perceived as gay.

They say the measure remains but oneexample of how this Legislature refuses to include protections in statelaw for LGBT individuals, even though several communities throughoutthe state — including Lansing and East Lansing — have done so.

Five bills in particular are up for consideration, whileanother is on its way to Snyder’s desk, that advocates see as acoordinated effort by mostly conservative lawmakers to “reframe thenarrative” from thwarting LGBT rights to economic concerns or religiousfreedom, one political activist said.

“I’m not a big conspiracy theorist, but so much of thisis going on across the country,” said Amy Hunter, president of theEquality Michigan Pride PAC. “There seems to be at all levels —statewide office, the Legislature, the state attorney general — thissort of attack on gay and transgender communities.”

Whitmer said whether the legislation is coordinated, “Icertainly think it appears that way. It’s a pattern of ignorance andintolerance that I think is detrimental to individuals in our state. …I think it’s a social agenda. I don’t know if it’s coordinated but it’scertainly a pattern.”

Republicans interviewed for this storyall deny that what’s going on in this legislative session is any sortof coordinated attack.

Jones also denies it: “Nothing that I have ever done hasattacked people based on LGBT issues. I don’t know of anything, anymovement in Lansing to do that. … I’m not part of any coordinatedeffort if that’s the perception.”

State Rep. Joe Haveman, R-Holland, is sponsoring a billthat would allow counselors at higher education institutions to refuseservice to individuals based on “a sincerely held religious belief ormoral conviction.” Democratic floor leader Tupac Hunter from Detroitsponsors an identical bill in the Senate. Haveman said on whether hisbill is related to other proposed legislation that could threaten tostrip rights from the LGBT community: “You’re so far wrong on that. …The gay community, the LGBT community takes everything as an attack onthem. You’re feeding that story.”

Dave Agema, R-Grandville, chairman of the House GOPcaucus, said at the time that universities are “not above the law” andoffering same-sex partner benefits flies in the face of the 2004 ballotinitiative banning same-sex marriage in the state. Agema’s amendmentnever made it in the budget, but on May 22, he vowed (on Facebook) tobring back separate legislation to tackle the issue.

House Bills 4770 and 4771, which passedin the House Sept. 15 and now await Senate approval, would prohibitpublic employers — including universities and colleges — from offeringdomestic partner benefits and would prohibit such benefits from being atopic of collective bargaining.

Agema, who could not be reached for comment, often citesin the media and on his personal Facebook account that the 2004 ballotinitiative should prohibit offering same-sex partner benefits, alongwith an opinion from former Attorney General Mike Cox and the stateSupreme Court. But in January, the Michigan Civil Service Commissionapproved a benefits package negotiated between the United Auto Workersand the Office of the State Employer that includes domestic partnerbenefits for either same-sex or opposite-sex partners and theirdependents.

Meanwhile, the House Fiscal Agency reported that thestate would save about $8 million by not having to cover such benefitsin HB 4770. Adler said this is the main reason Bolger supports the bill— not for social reasons.

“When it came through the House and we passed it, thereare certainly some members of the caucus (for whom) that’s a domesticpartner issue. Others say it’s an economic issue,” Adler said. “Wepushed it through primarily looking at what’s going on with theeconomics.”

But cost projections were off dramatically. In September,state Personnel Director Jeremy Stephens told the Civil ServiceCommission that preliminary numbers show fewer than 100 people withinthe state’s 47,692-member workforce taking advantage of the benefitsfor a total cost to the state of $600,000

Says Whitmer: “I don’t think there is an economic benefitfrom these pieces of legislation. That’s what (Republicans) claim as ajustification for everything they push. They know how desperate thepeople of Michigan are for jobs. I think it’s a phony argument tojustify intolerance.”

Moreover, opponents — including the Michigan Departmentof Civil Rights, the ACLU of Michigan, the Michigan TownshipsAssociation, Equality Michigan and the Michigan State EmployeesAssociation — say the legislation would give the state a reputation ofintolerance, keeping out and driving away talented employees. Also,opponents say the 2004 same-sex marriage amendment is not indicative ofvoters in 2011.

“An anti-equality ballot initiative passed almost adecade ago no longer represents the will of Michigan voters — a factthat clearly demonstrates that discrimination should not be writteninto a constitution,” Emily Dievendorf, policy director for EqualityMichigan, said in an e-mail.

5039

State Rep. Tom McMillin, R-RochesterHills, introduced House Bill 5039 on Oct. 5. It’s before the House’sJudiciary Committee, though it is not clear whether the committee willtake action on it this year.

The bill seeks to amend the state’s Elliott Larsen CivilRights Act of 1976 by prohibiting state agencies or local units ofgovernments — including schools and a “community college district” —from adopting rules, regulations or ordinances “that includes, as aprotected class, any classification not specifically included as aprotected class under this act.” It also voids “Any existing ordinance,rule, regulation, or policy that includes, as a protected class, anyclassification not specifically included as a protected class underthis act.”

Part of what the Elliott Larsen Act does is prohibitdiscriminatory practices based on “religion, race, color, nationalorigin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.”

McMillin, an accountant and business owner in his second term, could not be reached for comment.

The Lansing and East Lansing citycouncils have each approved resolutions against the proposedlegislation. Lansing’s Human Rights Ordinance as amended in 2006prohibits discrimination in “housing, employment and publicaccommodations” based on “sexual orientation, gender identity, genderexpression and student status” — categories that are not included inthe Elliott Larsen Act. In its resolution urging local legislators tovote against HB 5039, the Council states: “The state has no legitimateinterest in restricting the ability of local units of government toadopt anti-discrimination ordinances that reflect the values and uniquecircumstances of our communities.

“Proposed House Bill 5039 would void the City ofLansing’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexualorientation, gender identity, gender expression, and student status.”

Adler said Bolger has not yet taken a position onMcMillin’s proposal. Adler said he’s skeptical that the House will voteon this bill this year.

Named the “Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act,” theHouse version of this bill was introduced on the same day as McMillin’sHB 5039. The Senate’s identical version — sponsored by Tupac Hunter —was referred to a committee in June.

These bills would prohibit universities andcolleges from disciplining or discriminating against counseling orsocial work students who refuse their services “that conflict with asincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of the student, ifthe student refers the client to a counselor who will provide thecounseling or services.”

The proposals are in response to an incident at EasternMichigan University where Julea Ward, a graduate student, wasreportedly kicked out of a program for refusing to counsel someone whowas gay and referred them to another counselor. AnnArbor.com reportedin October that EMU officials had removed Ward for violating theAmerican Counseling Association’s code of ethics. The case is beforethe state Court of Appeals.

Haveman, who is sponsoring the House version,said the bills are being misconstrued as blocking the rights of LGBTindividuals. On the contrary, Haveman said, Ward was “treated verypoorly based on her religious beliefs. She was really discriminatedagainst based on her religious beliefs.”

Amy Hunter, of Equality Michigan’s Pride PAC, saidHaveman’s argument is “an attempt to reframe the dialogue around FirstAmendment protections. It’s not really about allowing her to exerciseher conscience. In my thinking, she should go into a different line ofwork — counseling is not about her, it’s about the client.”

4163

The Legislature agreed on an anti-bullying bill Tuesdaythat requires school districts that don’t already have an anti-bullyingpolicy to adopt one within six months after the governor signs the bill.

However, it’s not what LGBT advocates had in mind. Thatvision would have afforded protections specifically based on sexualorientation and gender identification — as well as for any other child— and would require more stringent reporting on the part of schools,Hunter said.

Equality Michigan’s Amy Hunter praised the decision toremove the controversial “license to bully” language, but she stillcondemned the bill overall.

“It’s still not enumerated,” she said, referring to such commonly targeted characteristics such as effeminacy. “It doesn’t have teeth. It doesn’t have the back-end reporting requirements that are needed.

“Studies don’t just suggest, they pretty muchunequivocally say that states that have non-enumerated anti-bullyingbills, or districts, show no difference in the amount of bullying inrelation to states or school districts (with them). They might as wellnot even have the darn thing.”

But Jones, who sponsored the controversial Senate billthat fell flat, sees it differently. He said, “Any time you addenumerations you exclude children. You could never possibly list everyreason a child can be bullied. It’s a better policy legally to say nochild be bullied.”

Jones also said if all bullying caseshad to be reported by school boards, “you’re adding an unfundedmandate, then it gets very hard to pass a bill. My goal is to getsomething done. Let’s get something passed. We’ve been talking aboutthis for years.”

Adler echoed Jones’ concerns aboutadding enumerations to the bill. He also said, “We ended up using abrand new bill that had already been in the House because (the Senate’sversion), in name alone, was toxic.”

Do they have legs?

While only one of these bills is guaranteedto go before the governor, they all could. For now, it’s uncertain howSnyder will react to any of this legislation if it passes the House andSenate. A request for comment from the Governor’s Office was notreturned.

Dievendorf, of Equality Michigan, said Snyder has a chance to prove himself on whether he supports any of these proposals.

“Governor Snyder prides himself on being a pragmatistmoderate. He is from Ann Arbor. We can assume that, like all of us, hehas friends he would do real harm to by approving legislativeanti-equality initiatives. The fair-minded in Michigan are just waitingto see if he will be the grown up in the room or cave to partisanpolitics,” she said in an e-mail.

For Amy Hunter, HB 5039 is “the thing Ireally have my head around.” That’s the proposal that would strike downlocal communities’ non-discrimination ordinances and prevent them fromenacting anything more stringent than the 1976 Elliott Larsen CivilRights Act. “I don’t want to go the route of the courts with it,” shesaid.

But local units of government are whereHunter also sees progress being made on equal protections based onsexual orientation and gender identification. The Pride PAC endorsescandidates in local elections.

“We ran a modest but successful and well-receivedcampaign to have everyday folks nominate people as pro-equalitycandidates to try and get people interested in the electoral process,particularly at the local level,” she said. “These are folks who have amajor impact on daily lives. … We’re trying to make the argument of whyit’s important for the state, for the well being of everyone in thestate, why it makes economic sense to embrace diversity. These are notesoteric issues — it’s for the well being of the state.”

House Bills

Sponsor: Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville

Status: Passed House, in Senate Committee of the Whole

What it would do: Eliminate domesticpartner benefits for public employees — including those at universities— and also restricts such benefits from collective bargaining.

Supporters say:It would save taxpayers about $8 million, according to the House FiscalAgency. Proponents also say it’s illegal for public employees toreceive domestic partner benefits, in light of a 2004 amendment banningsame-sex marriage.

Opponents say: The amount to be saved isquestionable — the state personnel director the real annual cost ismore like $600,000 — and it’s uncertain who would leave the state ornot come to work here because of the ban. Opponents also say it wouldbe illegal to put such requirements upon autonomous universities.

House Bill 5040/ Senate Bill 518

Sponsors: Rep. Joe Haveman, R-Holland; Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit

Status: Both bills are in committee

What it would do: Allowstudent counselors and social workers to refuse service to individualswhen there is a conflict of religious or moral beliefs.

Supporters say:After a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University was punishedfor not counseling someone who was gay and referred them to someoneelse because of her religion, her religious freedom was blocked by theschool.

What it would do:Restrict local governments and school districts from adoptingnon-discrimination policies that go beyond the 1976 Elliott LarsenCivil Rights Act. It also would void current policies, like the city ofLansing’s Human Rights Ordinance. Elliott Larsen Act does not protectsexual orientation, gender identity or student status.

Supporters say: McMillin could not be reached for comment.

Opponents say: This bill would eliminate local communities’ ability to extend civil rights protections for individuals.

What it would do: Createa statewide anti-bullying policy that would require school districts toinstitute such policies within six months after adoption.

Supporters say:At least there isn’t language (which was in a previous version) thatwould have exempted statements based on religious or moral beliefs. Anon-enumerated bill means individuals aren’t singled out and everyoneis covered. Signals an end to a several-year debate on adopting ananti-bullying policy.

Opponents say:The bill won’t have teeth. Those who wanted a strong bill said anenumerated bill — that specifically protects LGBT individuals — withstronger reporting requirements would have been effective, as is shownin other states.